White man’s burden?

Why do Indians have such an attraction towards white
skin? I am a White and a born Christian – but even after
more than 30 years in India, this attraction in its
people still baffles me. I have looked in my mind for
answers.

When I see Mr Bill Gates coming to give charity to the
poor and ignorant Indians, who do not know how to handle
sex and are on the way to becoming the largest AIDS
reservoir in the world, I wonder: Do Indians really
believe in what the White man says? Do they need a White
man to tell them what to do and what not to do? Actually
the funny thing is that this AIDS scare is an old trick
of hostile NGOs, Christian organisations and the enemies
of India. It is true that AIDS is the scourge of the 21st
century, the great black plague of our era. But more is
being made of it than is necessary, especially in the
Indian context.

World health organisations are fond of saying that India
has the largest population of HIV contaminated cases –
some even speak about 25 millions by 2010. But as every
one knows, AIDS spreads through three agents:
Homosexuality, hypodermic syringes of drug addicts and
prostitutes. Yet, whatever Deepa Mehta or Shabana Azmi
would like us to believe, homosexuality is not very
common in India’s villages, which comprise 80 per cent of
the population; one-sided homosexuality is a Western
phenomenon and it is brought to India by Westernised
Indians.

As for hard drug addiction, again it is not all that
common in Indian villages, except in some of the North-
East border states, many of which incidentally happen to
be Christian. The prostitutes carry the greatest threat
of spreading the disease, particularly in big cities like
Mumbai. Then in turn, those men who have contacted it
will bring it to the villages, when they have intercourse
with their wives. But 25 million AIDS cases?

Again, when I see the fascination that Indians – old and
young, rich and poor, whether from the Congress, the CPI
or even the BJP – have for Congress president Sonia
Gandhi, I wonder: Does India, one of the great ancient
civilisations, need a White woman to govern it? I am sure
she has great qualities, but are Indians so backward that
they cannot find amongst themselves someone intelligent
enough enough to lead them? And what about this craze for
Mother Teresa? She may have been a saint, but nobody has
harmed India’s image in the West as much in the 20th
century. When you mention India in the West, their eyes
light up and they say: “Mother Teresa/ Calcutta/ poor
people/ starving people/ who do not know how to care
after their own underprivileged/ who need a White woman
to show them how to pick-up those dying in the street and
to look after orphans.”

Is this the image that Indians needs today – one that is
harming them, which is stopping Western investors from
investing in India? Yet Mother Teresa is worshiped here,
from Calcutta to Chennai, and when she will be made a
saint by the Vatican, perpetuating this colonial,
superior-minded, Christian symbol of White superiority
over the Brown/Black man, the whole of Indian media will
rejoice in their own mental slavery and the Indian
Government will probably declare a national holiday!

Why don’t Indians understand that Brown is beautiful?
White people spend hours in the beach and put a hundred
cream and lotions to get tanned. Why this obsession in
Indian woman to have white skin? And why this growing
trend to colour their hair blonde? How come the two most
popular actors in India, Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik
Roshan, have very fair skins and blue eyes? Why this
craze about “fair” brides? If you find the answer to
that, you will understand the reason behind Indians’
fatal attraction towards Mr Bill Gates, Ms Sonia Gandhi
and Mother Teresa.

Obviously, colonisation has frozen the Indian mind in
certain patterns and the British made sure, through
Macaulay’s policies of leaving behind them an enduring
complex of inferiority amongst Indians, by constantly
harping on the flaws of Indian culture and inflating
them. This is why Indian intellectuals today repeat what
their masters said before: “Hindus are fundamentalists/
Brahmins are exploiters/ Golwalkar was a Nazi/ Indians
are corrupt and no good.” But that does not explain
everything: Most colonised countries have aped their
masters after having hated them. No, in my mind the
greatest factor behind India’s love of the White is the
absurd theory of Aryan invasion.

According to this theory, which was actually devised in
the 18th and 19th century by British linguists and
archaeologists, the first inhabitants of India were good-
natured, peaceful, dark-skinned shepherds called the
Dravidians, who had founded what is now known as the
Harappan or the Indus Valley civilisation. They were
supposedly remarkable builders: Witness the city of
Mohenjo-Daro in Sind. But they had no culture to speak
of, that is to say no literature, no proper script even.
Then, around 1500 BC, India is said to have been invaded
by tribes called the Aryans: white-skinned, nomadic
people, who originated somewhere in Western Russia and
imposed upon the Dravidians the hateful caste system. To
the Aryans are attributed Sanskrit, the Vedic-Hindu
religion, India’s greatest spiritual texts, the Vedas, as
well as a host of subsequent writings, like the
Upanishads.

This was indeed a masterstroke on the part of the
British: Thanks to the Aryan invasion theory, they showed
on the one hand that the Indian civilisation was not that
ancient and that it was secondary to the cultures which
influenced the Western world, and that whatever good
things India had developed had been as a result of the
influence of the West. Thus, Sanskrit, instead of being
known as the mother of all Indo-European languages,
became just a branch of their huge family; thus, the
religion of Zarathustra is said to have influenced
Hinduism, and not vice versa.

On the other hand, it divided India and pitted its people
against each other, rifts which still endure. Yet, most
recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries point
out that there never was an Aryan invasion and many
historians, including Romila Thapar, are distancing
themselves from it. Yet, most Indians still believe in
this absurd theory.

It is time for you Indians to wake up. You are as great,
if not greater, than the White man. You can do as well,
if not better, than the White man. Not only did your
forefathers devise some of the basic principles of
mathematics, astrology, or surgical medicine, not only
are your people today amongst the most brilliant in the
world – half of Silicon valley is of people of Indian
origin; 30 per cent of UK’s doctors are Indians – but you
still hold within yourselves a unique spiritual
knowledge, which once roamed the world, but which has now
disappeared, replaced by the intolerant creed of the two
major monotheistic religions, which say: “If you don’t
believe in my true God, I will either kill you or convert
you.” Wake-up India. Brown is beautiful, smart and it is
the future.

4 responses to “White man’s burden?”

Brown is beautiful! And yes, Indians care far too much about fair skin. Look at the fairness creams and the matrimonials.

And the AIT is taught in history books, so the onus is on us to prove that it is wrong. Try writing something in wikipedia, that does not subscribe to AIT or other colonial theories and they will mark you with a “controversia/unverifiable” label.

I don’t think the country wants a white woman to rule. But she is the bahu of Indira Gandhi and the wife of Rajiv Gandhi and the mother of Rahul Gandhi. That is the dynasty factor at work there.

I am glad to hear that marxist historians like Romilla Thapar are distancing themselves from the AIT., but that knowledge has not filtered into Mainstream History – to pass exams and get promotions, AIT is still the way to go.

So if we have the uneducated on one hand, we have the ‘educated wrongly’ on the other hand. I know some young people are doing awareness campaigns nowadays.

Finally, we have won political freedom, but not ‘historical’ or ‘cultural’ freedom yet from white domination. The fact that whites ‘OWN’ the best technology, and the world bank, still works in their favour.

Long before the british came to India, there was the theory that devas lived at the top of the himalayas. There was the theory that brahmins were twice born. There was the theory that brahmins are the devas of the world. I have nothing against brahmins since they largely mind their own silly business, which includes the silliest of all sciences which is astrology. Any body got any benefit from lt? Impossible to believe. So british experimented with things like “general elections” which was found very successful. They have a Shakespeare who wrote a variety of excellent dramas. Who comes near to that? So absolutely no harm in adoring him and the likes of Avogadro, Newton, Galileo, Arther Conan Doyle, Jules Verne, Jean Paul Sartre, H.G.Wells, Dostovisky, Yakovlev etc. who only happened to be all whites, not because of it. Let one of us write a book or theory like that and I will admire him or her.

“And what about this craze for
Mother Teresa? She may have been a saint, but nobody has
harmed India’s image in the West as much in the 20th
century.”

Gautier, not everyone in the West is enamored of “Mother” Teresa. I think if more Westerners were honest about MT actual impact, then more Indians will be free from MT’s shackles. Right now the atmosphere created by Westerners around MT, Indians can’t be honestly critical of MT without coming off looking ungrateful or even worse fanatical. There is a demonization of everyone who isn’t goo goo ga ga about MT.

“Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.”
-Christopher Hitchens

“….This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for “the poorest of the poor.” People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the “Missionaries of Charity,” but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell’s admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.

One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.”